Ex Parte Christensen et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

14314822 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/314,822 06/25/2014
116886 7590 07/02/2019
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP (State Farm)
233 South Wacker Drive
6300 Willis Tower
Chicago, IL 60606-6357
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Scott T. Christensen
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
32060/48265-CON 6424
EXAMINER
NIQUETTE, ROBERT R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
mgbdocket@marshallip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT T. CHRISTENSEN, CHRISTOPHER E. GAY,
GREGORY HAYWARD, STEVEN C. CIELOCHA, and TODD BINION
Appeal 2018-001936
Application 14/314,822 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MARC S. HOFF, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and JASON M.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appellants' invention is a system and method to process vehicle
operation data to generate insurance policy offers tailored to the intended
and actual use of a vehicle. Spec. ,r 5. The method includes receiving a first
indication of a vehicle at a first time from a first sensor device at a first
1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
location, and receiving a second indication of a vehicle at a second time
from a second sensor device at a second location. The method further
includes receiving a third indication of a vehicle at a third time from said
first sensor, and receiving a fourth indication of a vehicle at a fourth time
from said second sensor. The method further includes determining, by a
processor, whether the four indications are each associated with the vehicle;
calculating a first time period between the first time and the second time,
and a second time period between the third time and the fourth time;
determining, by a processor, a vehicle usage unit based on the first time
period and second time period; and providing a customer associated with the
vehicle an option to purchase an insurance policy based at least part on the
vehicle usage unit. Spec. ,r 6.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a remote server via at least one network
connection at a first time on a first day from a first sensor
device located at a first premises, (i) a first indication that the
vehicle is located within a detectable range of the first sensor
device, and (ii) first information identifying the vehicle;
receiving, via the at least one network connection at a second
time on the first day from a second sensor device located at a
second premises, (i) a second indication that the vehicle is
located within a detectable range of the second sensor device,
and (ii) second information identifying the vehicle;
receiving, via the at least one network connection at a third time
on a second day from the first sensor device located at the first
premises, (i) a third indication that the vehicle is located within
a detectable range of the first sensor device, and (ii) third
information identifying the vehicle;
receiving, via the at least one network connection at a fourth
time on the second day from the second sensor device located at
the second premises, (i) a fourth indication that the vehicle is
2
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
located within a detectable range of the second sensor device,
and (ii) fourth information identifying the vehicle,
wherein the first premises and the second premises correspond
to different locations associated with multiple roadways on
which the vehicle travels during the first day and the second
day;
upon receiving the first indication, the second indication, the
third indication, and the fourth indication, altering a state of the
remote server to determine, by a processor, whether the first
indication, the second indication, the third indication, and the
fourth indication are each associated with the vehicle based
upon an analysis of the first information, the second
information, the third information, and the fourth information;
and when the first information, the second information, the
third information, and the fourth information are each
associated with the vehicle:
calculating, by the processor, (i) a first time period between the
first time and the second time and (ii) a second time period
between the third time and the fourth time;
calculating, by the processor, an approximate time period based
on each of the first time period and the second time period;
determining, by the processor, a vehicle usage unit based on the
approximate time period; and
transmitting, to a computing device associated with a customer
who is associated with the vehicle, an option to purchase an
insurance policy, the option being priced in terms of a cost per
vehicle usage unit.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed September 12, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed
December 15, 2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed November
15, 2017) for their respective details.
3
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
ISSUES
1. Is the claimed invention directed to a judicial exception?
2. Is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application?
3. Are the cited claim limitations supported by the specification?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention is patent eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l,
573 U.S. 208,216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category,
we are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in
Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is "directed
to." See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are
drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third
party to mitigate settlement risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S.
593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners' application explain the
basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978));
and mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)).
4
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical
processes, such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450
U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); "tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth,
vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning
v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267---68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour
(Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785
(1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 at 176; see also id. at 192 ("We view
respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.").
Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking
patent protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the
protection of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be
circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
technological environment." Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at
187 ("It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or
mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be
deserving of patent protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( quotation marks omitted). "A
5
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to
ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
"[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to
transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Memorandum"). 84 Fed. Reg. 50.
Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Only if a claim ( 1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
are not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field
(seeMPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
6
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
ANALYSIS
SECTION 101 REJECTION
With regard to subject-matter eligibility, Appellants make a unitary
argument directed to all pending claims. App. Br. 11-20. Accordingly, we
will select independent claim 1 as representative of the rejected claims.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
(a) receiving, at a first time on a first day from a first sensor device
located at a first premises, a first indication that a vehicle is located within
range of the first sensor and first information identifying the vehicle;
(b) receiving, at a second time on the first day from a first sensor
device located at a second premises, a second indication that a vehicle is
located within range of the second sensor and second information
identifying the vehicle;
( c) receiving, at a third time on a second day from the first sensor
device located at a first premises, a third indication that a vehicle is located
within range of the first sensor and third information identifying the vehicle;
( d) receiving, at a fourth time on the second day from a second sensor
device located at a second premises, a fourth indication that a vehicle is
located within range of the second sensor and fourth information identifying
the vehicle;
( e) determining, by a processor, whether the first, second, third, and
fourth indications are each associated with the vehicle;
( f) calculating the time period between the first time and second time,
and the second time period between the third time and fourth time, and
calculating an approximate time period based on the first time period and
second time period;
7
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
(g) determining, by the processor, a vehicle usage unit based on the
approximate time period; and
(h) transmitting an option to purchase an insurance policy, the option
being priced in terms of a cost per vehicle usage unit.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation,
recite gathering vehicle location and time data on two separate days from
each of two respective sensors, calculating vehicle usage duration from the
time data, and offering to the vehicle's owner an insurance policy priced
according to the vehicle usage duration data.
We regard the claimed concept of offering an insurance policy to a
customer based upon duration of vehicle usage to be one of certain methods
of organizing human activity classified as abstract ideas under the Revised
Guidelines. Specifically, insurance is considered a fundamental economic
principle or practice, and offering a contract is considered a commercial or
legal interaction. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 219--20 (concluding that use
of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ''fundamental economic
practice" and thus an abstract idea); id. (describing the concept of risk
hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as "a method of organizing
human activity"); Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611-12 (concluding that hedging is a
"fundamental economic practice" and therefore an abstract idea); Bancorp
Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (US.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (concluding that "managing a stable value protected life
insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results'' is
an abstract idea); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876
F.3d 1372, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that concept of "local
processing of payments for remotely purchased goods'' is a ''fundamental
8
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
economic practice, which Alice made clear is, without more, outside the
patent system."); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,
1362---63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (concluding that claimed concept of "offer-based
price optimization'' is an abstract idea '' similar to other 'fundamental
economic concepts' found to be abstract ideas by the Supreme Court and
this court"); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (holding that concept of "creating a contractual relationship----a
'transaction performance guaranty' '' is an abstract idea).
Further, we regard the claim limitations concerning calculating the
time period between the first time and second time, and the second time
period between the third time and fourth time, and calculating an
approximate time period based on the first time period and second time
period, as reciting a mathematical concept, specifically a mathematical
calculation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("The
concept of hedging ... reduced to a mathematical formula ... is an
unpatentable abstract idea[.]"); Diamondv. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)
(''A mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our
patent laws") (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584,
594 (1978) ("[T]he discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a
patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.'');
Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72 (concluding that permitting a patent on the
claimed invention ''would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in
practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself''); Mackay Radio &
Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939) ("[A]
scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not patentable
invention[.]"); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed.
9
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a "series of mathematical calculations
based on selected information'' are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech
Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) holding that claims to a ''process of organizing information
through mathematical correlations" are directed to an abstract idea);
Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280 (identifying the concept of "managing a stable
value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and
manipulating the results'' as an abstract idea).
Accordingly, we conclude that the claims recite a fundamental
economic practice (insurance), and a commercial or legal interaction
( offering a contract), which each constitute one of certain methods of
organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52. We further conclude that the claims also recite calculations, which
constitute one of the mathematical concepts identified in the Revised
Guidance. Id. We thus conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea.
Appellants argue that the end result of the process recited in the
claims is "an improvement in computer functionality that allows for vehicle
usage data to be calculated in an improved manner." App. Br. 12. Appellants
contend that the claimed process "first identifies whether vehicle
information exists in several different datasets," and if so, "tracks the time
periods that the vehicle was driven between various sensor device
locations." Id. We consider this argument unpersuasive, because Appellants
have not identified any improvement in computer functionality. Appellants
merely disclose searching a dataset in a known manner for records matching
a particular vehicle. Merely verifying that records correspond to the proper
vehicle does not, in our view, constitute an improvement to the manner of
10
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
calculating vehicle usage, as calculating vehicle usage from records not
associated with the same vehicle would be universally recognized as
pointless.
Appellants also attempt to analogize the claims under appeal to the
invention claimed in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343
(Fed. Cir. 2017), in which an inertial sensor was mounted on a tracked
object and another sensor was mounted on a "moving reference frame."
App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 5. Mathematical operations were performed to
determine the relative position of the moving object. The court concluded
that the claims were "not merely directed to the abstract idea of using
'mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving
object to a moving reference frame," but to "systems and methods that use
inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring
the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving
reference frame." Thales Visionix, 850 F.3d at 1348.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims under
appeal are analogous to those in Thales Visionix. We do not agree with
Appellants that the "arrangement" of sensors at "specific locations" in the
instant claims is analogous to the use of sensors in a non-conventional
manner to reduce errors in measuring relative position and orientation
lauded in Thales Visionix. The Thales court's conclusion of patent eligibility
rested on claims that specified "a particular configuration of inertial sensors
and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to
more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a
moving platform .... [T]he claims [sought] to protect only the application
of physics to the unconventional configuration of sensors as disclosed."
11
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
Thales Visionix, 850 F.3d at 1347. In contrast, no such unconventional
configuration of sensors, or unconventional method of using raw sensor
data, is disclosed or claimed herein. The claims under appeal recite only that
a first sensor is located at a first premises and detects a vehicle within its
detection range and that a second sensor is located at a second premises and
detects a vehicle within its detection range.
Appellants further argue that the claimed invention addresses "a
business challenge particular to a specific environment" and are thus patent-
eligible. Appellants rely on the 2014 Interim Guidance, which finds a sample
patent claim to be patent eligible in that it "addresses a business challenge
... that is particular to the Internet," and "provides a claimed solution that
"is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a
problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." App. Br.
14--15; 2014 Interim Guidance 5---6.
Appellants' argument that the claimed invention is analogous because
it recites steps "associated with overcoming problems related to the business
challenge of pricing insurance in terms of vehicle usage units" is
unpersuasive in light of the Interim Guidance (and in light of DDR Holdings,
whose holding the Guidance adopts). Appellants make no argument and
provide no evidence that the claimed invention addresses a business
challenge particular to the Internet. Appellants make no argument and
provide no evidence that the invention overcomes a problem specifically
arising in the realm of computer networks or any other technical field.
INTEGRATED INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
We next evaluate whether the claims integrate the identified abstract
idea into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51.
12
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
We consider whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract
ideas that, individually or in combination, "integrate the [ abstract ideas] into
a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by
the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit." Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54--55.
We determine that the claimed invention does not constitute an
improvement to the functioning of a computer; rather, it merely constitutes
the adaptation of the abstract ideas of computing the duration of usage of a
vehicle, and offering a contract for insurance priced at a certain rate per
"vehicle usage unit." MPEP 2106.05(a). There is no disclosure to the effect
that the claimed invention is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.
MPEP 2106.05(b). Appellants' invention does not effect the transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. MPEP
2106.05(c).
Turning to further elements under the Guidelines for determining
whether an abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, we
determine that Appellants' invention constitutes mere instructions to
implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.05([). We
determine that the claim limitations directed to "receiving" first, second,
third, and fourth indications that the vehicle is within a detectable range of a
sensor, are claim limitations regarding data gathering. As such, these
limitations constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP
2106.05(g).
Appellants argue that the limitation of "altering a state of the remote
server" adds meaningful limitations to the claims beyond the recited abstract
ideas of calculating vehicle usage time and offering an insurance contract.
13
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
App. Br. 16-17. We are not persuaded that the change of the server's state
"such that additional processing steps are executed when it is determined
that different sets of data ... are identified as being associated with the same
vehicle," as claim 1 recites, constitutes such an alleged non-generic
arrangement of processes. What Appellants disclose and claim here amounts
only to a well-known conditional branching in a computer program. That the
abstract idea of mathematically calculating vehicle usage time is performed
only when the necessary data for such calculations has been gathered does
not transform the abstractness of the idea. Rather, it only further narrows the
recited abstract idea itself. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("A narrow claim directed to an
abstract idea, however, is not necessarily patent-eligible.").
WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL
Having determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, and do
not integrate that exception into a practical application, we consider whether
the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
"well understood, routine, and conventional" in the field. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appellants argue, referring to the 2015 Interim Guidance, that a claim
is patent eligible when it recites meaningful limitations that add more than
generally linking the use of the abstract idea to the Internet, in that "they
solve an Internet-centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily
rooted in computer technology." App. Br. 19. Appellants assert that claim 1
"recites features directed to computer technology for vehicle tracking and
vehicle identification," and that "the problem to which Appellant's
14
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
independent claim 1 is directed is necessarily rooted in computer
technology." App. Br. 20.
We are not persuaded that Appellants solve an Internet-centric
problem with a claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology.
We do not agree that the problem of assuring that vehicle observations or
detections are properly correlated is a problem that is unique to the Internet,
or a problem that arises because of an Internet implementation. We also do
not agree that Appellants claim a solution necessarily rooted in computer
technology. But for the generic recitation in Appellants' claims of "network
connection" and "receiving," one could just as easily employ human
observers to "sense" and record the presence of vehicles in a particular
place. The generically recited determination that vehicle "indications" are
associated with the same vehicle could be performed by a human being
reviewing a list of such indications.
Appellants further argue that the claimed invention is analogous to the
claims included in Example 36 of the December 2016 Business Method
Example Update. App. Br. 17. Appellants suggest that the Specification sets
forth "a technical problem that is solved via the combination of a memory,
processor, and sensor devices in a manner that is not well-understood,
routine, or conventional activity to those in the field." App. Br. 18.
Appellants here contend that the use of sensor devices positioned at different
locations to determine time periods of vehicle travel is not well-understood,
routine, or conventional activity to those in the field of providing vehicle
insurance. Id.
Appellants' argument that their use of sensor device is not well-
understood, routine, or conventional in the field is based on the statement in
15
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
the Background section of the Specification that some insurance policies
have been based in the past on an envisioned distance that a vehicle may
travel, which was often an estimation that did not accurately reflect an actual
distance traveled. Spec. ,r 4. We do not find Appellants' position to be
persuasive. To accept Appellants' argument would be to accept that the use
of any vehicle sensor would be beyond what is well-understood, routine, and
conventional in the field, since the Specification states that past insurance
practices did not involve any vehicle sensing. The claims under appeal recite
only that there are two sensor devices (not further detailed) located at two
distinct premises that provide indications that a vehicle is located within a
detectable range. We are not persuaded that such vehicle sensing as is
claimed, which was well-known in the art at the time of filing of Appellants'
application, constitutes activity that is not "well-understood, routine, or
conventional."
As Appellants have not disclosed any features of the claimed
computer system, executable instructions, or calculating hardware/software
that would be considered as other than "well-understood, routine, and
conventional," these claim limitations fail to indicate the presence of an
inventive concept. We further find that Appellants' disclosure, discussed
supra, is specified at a high level of generality.
We conclude that none of the claim limitations, viewed "both
individually and as an ordered combination," amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception in order to sufficiently transform the nature of the
claims into patent-eligible subject matter. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-19
(internal quotations omitted) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-79).
16
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims
1-20.
SECTION 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH REJECTION
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, "upon receiving the first indication,
the second indication, the third indication, and the fourth indication, altering
a state of the remote server to determine, by a processor, whether [the four
indications] are each associated with the vehicle." Claim 11 recites a parallel
limitation.
Appellants argue that the Specification supports this limitation, citing
paragraphs 15 and 29. App. Br. 10. Paragraph 15 concerns the function of
vehicle detection equipment at multiple premises "capturing" a vehicle with
a time period or window. "Upon receiving respective information from
respective vehicle detection equipment, the insurance provider may process
the information to identify the vehicle ... and determine a distance that the
vehicle traveled within a time period of the captured information." Spec.
,r 15. Paragraph 29 discloses insurance provider 110 examining information
from sensor devices to identify the source, the associated location of the
source, and a time stamp. By examining and analyzing received information,
processing server 125 can identify a location of an identified vehicle at a
particular time. Spec. ,r 29.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Specification
supports "altering a state of [a] remote server." Paragraphs 15 and 29 do not
disclose altering a state of a server. Even if we accept Appellants' argument
that disclosure of computer processing necessarily involves disclosure of
altering a state of a processor, paragraphs 15 and 29 do not disclose a
processor that evaluates first, second, third, and fourth data items to
17
Appeal2018-001936
Application 14/314,822
determine that all four data items are associated with the same vehicle, as the
claim requires.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
2. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
3. The cited claim limitations are not supported by the specification.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
18